Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

°¡Ã¶¼º ±¹¼ÒÀÇÄ¡ÀÇ ÀÓ»óÀû »óÅ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Æò°¡

Evaluation of clinical status of removable partial dentures

´ëÇÑÄ¡°úº¸Ã¶ÇÐȸÁö 2009³â 47±Ç 3È£ p.320 ~ 327
¾çµ¿¼®, Á¶¿í, ÀüÀ±°æ, ÀüÀ¯Áø, À±¹ÌÁ¤,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
¾çµ¿¼® ( Yang Dong-Seok ) - ºÎ»ê´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úº¸Ã¶Çб³½Ç
Á¶¿í ( Cho Wook ) - ºÎ»ê´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úº¸Ã¶Çб³½Ç
ÀüÀ±°æ ( Jeon Yun-Kyung ) - ºÎ»ê´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úº¸Ã¶Çб³½Ç
ÀüÀ¯Áø ( Jeon You-Jin ) - ºÎ»ê´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úº¸Ã¶Çб³½Ç
À±¹ÌÁ¤ ( Yun Mi-Jung ) - ºÎ»ê´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úº¸Ã¶Çб³½Ç

Abstract

¿¬±¸¸ñÀû: °¡Ã¶¼º ±¹¼ÒÀÇÄ¡ÀÇ Àå±âÀû ¿¹Èĸ¦ º¸ÁõÇÏ°íÀÚ ÇÏ´Â ¸¹Àº ³ë·Â¿¡µµ ºÒ±¸ÇÏ°í, ºÎÀûÀýÇÑ Á¦ÀÛ ¹× À¯Áö°ü¸®·Î ÀÎÇØ °¡Ã¶¼º ±¹¼ÒÀÇÄ¡¿Í ¿¬°üµÈ ÇÕº´ÁõÀº ¿©ÀüÈ÷ °üÃøµÇ°í ÀÖ´Ù. ÀÌ¿¡ º» ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­´Â °¡Ã¶¼º ±¹¼ÒÀÇÄ¡ÀÇ ÀÓ»óÀû »óŸ¦ Á¶»çÇÏ¿© º¸Ã¶ Áø·áÀÇ ÀÓ»óÀû Âü°íÀÚ·á¿Í ÈÄÇבּ¸ÀÇ ±âÃÊÀÚ·á·Î µµ¿òÀÌ µÇ°íÀÚ ÇÏ¿´´Ù.

¿¬±¸Àç·á ¹× ¹æ¹ý: 2008³â 1¿ù¿¡¼­ 8¿ù±îÁö ºÎ»ê´ëÇб³º´¿ø Ä¡°ú º¸Ã¶°ú¿¡ ³»¿øÇÑ È¯ÀÚ Áß °¡Ã¶¼º ±¹¼ÒÀÇÄ¡¸¦ »ç¿ë ÁßÀÎ ¼ºÀÎÀ» ´ë»óÀ¸·Î °¡Ã¶¼º ±¹¼ÒÀÇÄ¡¿Í Áö´ëÄ¡¿¡ ¿¬°üµÈ ÀÓ»óÀû »óŸ¦ Á¶»ç Æò°¡ÇÏ¿´´Ù.

°á°ú ¹× °á·Ð: º» ¿¬±¸ÀÇ °á°ú´Â ´ÙÀ½°ú °°¾Ò´Ù. 1. Àüü °¡Ã¶¼º ±¹¼ÒÀÇÄ¡ÀÇ ÃßÁ¤¼ö¸íÀº 4.0³âÀ̾ú°í, Æò±Õ ÀåÂø ±â°£Àº 5.3³âÀ̾ú´Ù. 2. °¡Ã¶¼º ±¹¼ÒÀÇÄ¡ ¼º°ø, ½ÇÆÐ Æò°¡¿¡¼­ 45°³ÀÇ º¸Ã¶¹°ÀÌ ½ÇÆÐÇßÀ¸¸ç. Àüü 369°³ÀÇ Áö´ëÄ¡ Áß 18°³ (4.9%)ÀÇ Áö´ëÄ¡°¡ »ó½ÇµÇ¾ú´Ù. 3. °¡Ã¶¼º ±¹¼ÒÀÇÄ¡ÀÇ »ó,ÇÏ¾Ç À§Ä¡, Kennedy ºÐ·ù, ´ëÇÕÄ¡ÀÇ Á¶°Ç¿¡ µû¸¥ ÃßÁ¤ ¼ö¸íÀº Â÷ÀÌ°¡ ¾ø¾úÀ¸¸ç, ¼º°ø·ü°ú ½ÇÆÐÀ²µµ Â÷ÀÌ°¡ ¾ø¾ú´Ù (P > .05). 4. °¡Ã¶¼º ±¹¼ÒÀÇÄ¡ÀÇ ÁÖ¿¬°áÀåÄ¡´Â »ó¾Ç¿¡¼­ palatal plate ÁÖ¿¬°áÀåÄ¡ (55%)°¡ °¡Àå ¸¹ÀÌ ¼³°èµÇ¾úÀ¸¸ç, ÇϾǿ¡¼­´Â linguoplate ÁÖ¿¬°áÀåÄ¡ (52%), lingual bar ÁÖ¿¬°áÀåÄ¡ (45.3%) ¼øÀ¸·Î Á¶»çµÇ¾ú´Ù. 5. °¡Ã¶¼º ±¹¼ÒÀÇÄ¡ÀÇ Á÷Á¢À¯ÁöÀåÄ¡´Â circumferential type (74%), bar type (15%), ±âŸ (11%) ¼øÀ¸·Î Á¶»çµÇ¾ú´Ù. 6. Àüü 140°³ÀÇ ¥°±Þ°ú ¥±±Þ °¡Ã¶¼º ±¹¼ÒÀÇÄ¡ Áß 63%ÀÇ º¸Ã¶¹°¿¡ °£Á¢À¯ÁöÀåÄ¡°¡ ¼³°èµÇ¾î ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. 7. º¸Ã¶¹°ÀÇ ÁÖµÈ °áÇÔÀº °úµµÇÑ ±¸Ä¡ºÎ ÀΰøÄ¡ ¸¶¸ð (27.9%), º¸Ã¶¹°ÀÇ ¼Õ»ó (23.2%), ¾ÈÁ¤¼ºÀÇ ºÎÁ· (22.6%) ¼øÀ¸·Î ¹ß»ýÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç, Àüü º¸Ã¶¹°ÀÇ81%°¡ ÃÖ¼ÒÇÑ 1°³ÀÇ °áÇÔÀ» °¡Áö°í ÀÖ¾ú´Ù.

Statement of Problem: Although many efforts have been continually made to estimate long term prognosis of removable partial dentures, the complication of removable partial dentures was still found because of inaccurate fabrication procedure and improper maintenance care.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical status of removable partial dentures.

Material and Methods: A total of 112 individuals with 153 removable partial dentures (35 - 87 years, 64 women and 48 men) were examined by intra-oral examination, diagnostic cast and radiographic examination.

Results and Conclusion: The results of this study were as follows: 1. Length of service of removable partial dentures was 5.3 ¡¾ 4.3 years (mean), 4.0 years (median). 2. A total of 45 removable partial dentures were considered failures. The loss of 18 abutments of 369 was founded. 3. Type of arch, Kennedy classification and type of opposite dentition were found to have no influence on longevity and success rate of removable partial dentures (P > .05). 4. Most common major connector was the palatal plate in maxilla and the number of lingual bar and linguoplate designed in mandible were similar. 5. The circumferential type retainer was the most commonly used retainer. 6. Sixty-three percent of the class I and II removable partial dentures incorporated indirect retention into the design. 7. Approximately 81% of the removable partial dentures had at least one defect. Excessive wear of posterior teeth (27.9%), lack of integrity (23.2%), lack of stability (22.6%) were frequent defects of removable partial dentures.

Å°¿öµå

°¡Ã¶¼º ±¹¼ÒÀÇÄ¡;ÀÓ»óÀû »óÅÂ;¼ö¸í;ÇÕº´Áõ
removable partial denture;clinical status;longevity;complication

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI
KoreaMed